‘Janam patri not proof of age’: 13 years on, Delhi High Court refuses to overturn man’s acquittal in ‘rape, kidnapping’ case

“Admittedly, Janam Patri cannot be considered as proof of date of birth, and therefore, the age, if any, recorded in the school record on the basis of Janam Patri, also cannot be considered as proof of age of the prosecutrix,” the Delhi High Court said in its March 25 order.

Survivor’s age a prime question

• In the cases of kidnapping and rape, the prime question for consideration always remains the age of the survivor.
• The age is most relevant because the survivor’s age is a vital factor to determine if she had the capacity to give consent to go with the accused or indulge in a sexual act.
• The father of the survivor mentioned that his wife had gone to the school at the time of the girl’s admission with her ‘janam patri’ as age proof, which was prepared from the dispensary at the time of their daughter’s birth.
• The high court clarified that the ‘janam patri’ cannot be used as proof of age.
• It was further clarified that even the Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card cannot be treated as proof of the survivor’s date of birth.
• Seeking corroboration of the survivor’s statement before relying upon the same as a whole, in a minor assault case, would literally amount to adding insult to injury.
• The victim of rape is not an accomplice, and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration.
• If evidence is reliable and inspires confidence, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor.

Testimony ‘reliable’

• The consideration of the survivor’s testimony reveals that the man had not used any physical force to kidnap her from Delhi to Amritsar.
• The court found that, rather, the man was not even present in Delhi and the survivor had travelled to Amritsar alone by bus and thus was not under any physical threat.
• The survivor’s testimony does not inspire the confidence required to treat it as one of sterling quality, and the discrepancies are not minor variations but go to the root of the prosecution’s case.
• The high court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the survivor was a minor at the time of the incident, and therefore, the POCSO Act should also have no applicability in the case.
• The state has built its case on the basis that the survivor was about 16.5 years old at the time of the incident.
• The state claimed that since she was less than 18 years of age, she was not in a position to give consent to the accused to take her away from the custody of her parents.
• The law governing appeals against acquittal is well established.
• The appellate court can reappreciate the evidence and shall interfere only when the findings of the trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust.
• The view taken by the trial court is a plausible and reasonable one based on the evidence placed on record.
• The state has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• The findings of the trial court do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference.

From Delhi to Amritsar: ‘Kidnapping, assault’

• As per the chargesheet, on January 23, 2013, the survivor’s father went to the police and lodged a complaint that his daughter had been lured away by some unknown person.
• The father stated in the complaint that he had gone to Guwahati and on returning, his wife informed him that on January 10, 2013, she left for work at 11 am, and when she returned in the evening, their daughter was found missing from the house.
• His wife made efforts to search for the girl at their relatives’ places, but could not find any clue.
• On January 27, 2013, the survivor was found in Amritsar as per the information from her father.
• The accused was subsequently arrested, and on January 29, 2013, the survivor was produced before the Child Welfare Committee.
• The accused was charged under the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
• After hearing the parties, the trial court acquitted the accused in July 2019.

‘Trial court erred’

• Appearing for the state, assistant public prosecutor Aman Usman argued that the July 2019 judgment passed by the trial court is manifestly erroneous, contrary to law, and against the facts and evidence placed on record.
• It was argued that the trial court was in error in disregarding her testimony based on minor contradictions and alleged improvements, which were natural and insignificant.
• It was emphasised that the witness had consistently maintained that she was kidnapped under threat and subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused.
• It was further claimed that the survivor was a minor at the time of the incident, as per the testimonies of her parents, who stated that the age of the daughter was 16– 16.5 years at the time, which is supported by the date of birth.

‘Story full of contradictions’

• Representing the man, advocate Saurabh Kansal submitted that the story concerning the manner in which the survivor was kidnapped from Delhi under threat and taken to Amritsar, where she was confined and raped, is improbable and full of contradictions.
• It is argued that the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial court, is just and appropriate after due consideration of the evidence on record and therefore does not call for any interference.